Comments (23)

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?Feisty CBC

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

Score: 0

Boris says...11:47pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

To tick the box.

[quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]To tick the box.Boris

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

To tick the box.

Score: 0

Say It As It Is OK? says...7:29am Wed 16 Jan 13

Boris wrote…

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

To tick the box.

Another done deal it seems. A working group will be formed to try and FORCE through plans. This is despite evidence of an overwhelming rejection for this crackpot scheme. Perhaps they have a cunning plan to close the town centre altogether during the day and only open it for the clubs and bars at night. They haven't got a clue!

[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]To tick the box.[/p][/quote]Another done deal it seems.
A working group will be formed to try and FORCE through plans. This is despite evidence of an overwhelming rejection for this crackpot scheme.
Perhaps they have a cunning plan to close the town centre altogether during the day and only open it for the clubs and bars at night.
They haven't got a clue!Say It As It Is OK?

Boris wrote…

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

To tick the box.

Another done deal it seems. A working group will be formed to try and FORCE through plans. This is despite evidence of an overwhelming rejection for this crackpot scheme. Perhaps they have a cunning plan to close the town centre altogether during the day and only open it for the clubs and bars at night. They haven't got a clue!

Score: 0

TheCaptain says...8:51am Wed 16 Jan 13

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.

[quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour.
I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.TheCaptain

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.

Score: 0

romantic says...9:17am Wed 16 Jan 13

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.romantic

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

Score: 0

Bert_Stimpson says...9:35am Wed 16 Jan 13

Consultations are there to be ignored. If we listened to public opinion, then amazing projects like Firsts*ite would never have happened and we would have saved a shedload of cash. [sarcasm alert]

Consultations are there to be ignored. If we listened to public opinion, then amazing projects like Firsts*ite would never have happened and we would have saved a shedload of cash. [sarcasm alert]Bert_Stimpson

Consultations are there to be ignored. If we listened to public opinion, then amazing projects like Firsts*ite would never have happened and we would have saved a shedload of cash. [sarcasm alert]

Score: 0

Hamiltonandy says...10:41am Wed 16 Jan 13

Agree with Bert Stimpson. . Standard council procedure: 1. Announce disruptive and expensive plan to be implemented on a set date. 2. Have token consultation and ignore it. 3. Express astonishment at the universal outrage and flood of objections. 4. Defer start of scheme for further "consultation". 5. Ignore new token consultation and declare scheme will start soon. 6. Announce delay because there are legal problems. 7. Announce indefinite delay as there is no funding. 8. After a few months quietly put everything away in a folder and congratulate all council staff on their hard work.

Agree with Bert Stimpson.
.
Standard council procedure:
1. Announce disruptive and expensive plan to be implemented on a set date.
2. Have token consultation and ignore it.
3. Express astonishment at the universal outrage and flood of objections.
4. Defer start of scheme for further "consultation".
5. Ignore new token consultation and declare scheme will start soon.
6. Announce delay because there are legal problems.
7. Announce indefinite delay as there is no funding.
8. After a few months quietly put everything away in a folder and congratulate all council staff on their hard work.Hamiltonandy

Agree with Bert Stimpson. . Standard council procedure: 1. Announce disruptive and expensive plan to be implemented on a set date. 2. Have token consultation and ignore it. 3. Express astonishment at the universal outrage and flood of objections. 4. Defer start of scheme for further "consultation". 5. Ignore new token consultation and declare scheme will start soon. 6. Announce delay because there are legal problems. 7. Announce indefinite delay as there is no funding. 8. After a few months quietly put everything away in a folder and congratulate all council staff on their hard work.

Score: 0

sandgronun64 says...11:16am Wed 16 Jan 13

TheCaptain wrote…

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.

Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012. Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault. I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given. Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop!

[quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour.
I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.[/p][/quote]Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012.
Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault.
I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given.
Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop!sandgronun64

TheCaptain wrote…

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.

Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012. Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault. I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given. Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop!

Score: 0

jag99 says...3:06pm Wed 16 Jan 13

180 respondents is hardly any kind indication either for or against, from a town of more than 170,000 residents... Rather they should just get on and trial it rather than doing what's usually done in this country, which is talking and consulting, inevitably resulting in no action at all.

180 respondents is hardly any kind indication either for or against, from a town of more than 170,000 residents...
Rather they should just get on and trial it rather than doing what's usually done in this country, which is talking and consulting, inevitably resulting in no action at all.jag99

180 respondents is hardly any kind indication either for or against, from a town of more than 170,000 residents... Rather they should just get on and trial it rather than doing what's usually done in this country, which is talking and consulting, inevitably resulting in no action at all.

Score: 0

TheCaptain says...4:13pm Wed 16 Jan 13

sandgronun64 wrote…

TheCaptain wrote…

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.

Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012. Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault. I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given. Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop!

I think you are correct. I assumed wrongly perhaps that it was a done deal and that there was no reason to voice my consent. Lesson learnt.

[quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour.
I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.[/p][/quote]Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012.
Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault.
I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given.
Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop![/p][/quote]I think you are correct.
I assumed wrongly perhaps that it was a done deal and that there was no reason to voice my consent.
Lesson learnt.TheCaptain

sandgronun64 wrote…

TheCaptain wrote…

Feisty CBC wrote…

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?

Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.

Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012. Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault. I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given. Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop!

I think you are correct. I assumed wrongly perhaps that it was a done deal and that there was no reason to voice my consent. Lesson learnt.

Score: 0

Simon Taylor says...6:16pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Not another working group! I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative? The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.

Not another working group!
I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative?
The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.Simon Taylor

Not another working group! I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative? The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.

Score: 0

Simon Taylor says...6:17pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Not another working group! I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative? The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.

Not another working group!
I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative?
The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.Simon Taylor

Not another working group! I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative? The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.

Score: 0

Simon Taylor says...6:29pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Double-click again... Could the Gazette carry out one of its unscientific online polls to find out if a pedestrianisation trial is popular or not?

Double-click again...
Could the Gazette carry out one of its unscientific online polls to find out if a pedestrianisation trial is popular or not?Simon Taylor

Double-click again... Could the Gazette carry out one of its unscientific online polls to find out if a pedestrianisation trial is popular or not?

Score: 0

jut1972 says...8:57pm Wed 16 Jan 13

I thought the trial could be pushed through by categorising it as a temporary road closure or something along those lines. What a waste of time and money.

I thought the trial could be pushed through by categorising it as a temporary road closure or something along those lines.
What a waste of time and money.jut1972

I thought the trial could be pushed through by categorising it as a temporary road closure or something along those lines. What a waste of time and money.

Score: 0

Reginald47 says...11:07pm Wed 16 Jan 13

As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.

As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.Reginald47

As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.

Score: 0

Say It As It Is OK? says...7:33am Thu 17 Jan 13

Reginald47 wrote…

As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.

And too many people on this site confuse the word 'consultation' with the words 'done deal'. Or is that really confusion? Perhaps just a realisation they are going to do whatever they wanted in the first place.

[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote:
As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.[/p][/quote]And too many people on this site confuse the word 'consultation' with the words 'done deal'. Or is that really confusion? Perhaps just a realisation they are going to do whatever they wanted in the first place.Say It As It Is OK?

Reginald47 wrote…

As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.

And too many people on this site confuse the word 'consultation' with the words 'done deal'. Or is that really confusion? Perhaps just a realisation they are going to do whatever they wanted in the first place.

Score: 0

CJ1989 says...10:07pm Fri 18 Jan 13

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

[quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.
Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.
But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...CJ1989

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

Score: 0

Boris says...8:10pm Sat 19 Jan 13

CJ1989 wrote…

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.

[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.
Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.
But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...[/p][/quote]Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station.
The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.Boris

CJ1989 wrote…

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.

Score: 0

CJ1989 says...12:00pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Boris wrote…

CJ1989 wrote…

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.

I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars? I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy. I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same. Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer? So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?

[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.
Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.
But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...[/p][/quote]Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station.
The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.[/p][/quote]I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars?
I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy.
I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same.
Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer?
So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?CJ1989

Boris wrote…

CJ1989 wrote…

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.

I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars? I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy. I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same. Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer? So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?

Score: 0

Hamiltonandy says...11:34pm Sun 20 Jan 13

I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.

I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.Hamiltonandy

I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.

Score: 0

TheCaptain says...2:31pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Hamiltonandy wrote…

I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.

And I thought that in a democracy the people elected politicians to make decisions on their behalf. Has that changed?

[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote:
I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.[/p][/quote]And I thought that in a democracy the people elected politicians to make decisions on their behalf. Has that changed?TheCaptain

Hamiltonandy wrote…

I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.

And I thought that in a democracy the people elected politicians to make decisions on their behalf. Has that changed?

Score: 0

Boris says...3:57pm Tue 22 Jan 13

CJ1989 wrote…

Boris wrote…

CJ1989 wrote…

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.

I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars? I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy. I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same. Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer? So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?

Banning cars from the High Street will in fact be productive. It will allow buses and taxis to move along it more efficiently. Of course the market should return to High Street, where it was held for centuries. That could continue in all those parking bays, maybe on one side of the street only, and then, when one side is full, on the other side as well. What else would you want to do in High Street? Hunt for a polecat? All Freemen of the Borough of Colchester are allowed to do that. But first, find your polecat.....

[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.
Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.
But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...[/p][/quote]Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station.
The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.[/p][/quote]I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars?
I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy.
I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same.
Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer?
So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?[/p][/quote]Banning cars from the High Street will in fact be productive. It will allow buses and taxis to move along it more efficiently.
Of course the market should return to High Street, where it was held for centuries. That could continue in all those parking bays, maybe on one side of the street only, and then, when one side is full, on the other side as well.
What else would you want to do in High Street? Hunt for a polecat? All Freemen of the Borough of Colchester are allowed to do that. But first, find your polecat.....Boris

CJ1989 wrote…

Boris wrote…

CJ1989 wrote…

romantic wrote…

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.

I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...

Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.

I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars? I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy. I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same. Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer? So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?

Banning cars from the High Street will in fact be productive. It will allow buses and taxis to move along it more efficiently. Of course the market should return to High Street, where it was held for centuries. That could continue in all those parking bays, maybe on one side of the street only, and then, when one side is full, on the other side as well. What else would you want to do in High Street? Hunt for a polecat? All Freemen of the Borough of Colchester are allowed to do that. But first, find your polecat.....

Score: 0

Boris says...4:03pm Tue 22 Jan 13

CJ, I forgot your point about the Dutch Quarter. Yes, no doubt they will be altering the one-way arrangements there. The residents there are highly articulate, so it is up to them to ensure a satisfactory solution for themselves.

CJ, I forgot your point about the Dutch Quarter. Yes, no doubt they will be altering the one-way arrangements there. The residents there are highly articulate, so it is up to them to ensure a satisfactory solution for themselves.Boris

CJ, I forgot your point about the Dutch Quarter. Yes, no doubt they will be altering the one-way arrangements there. The residents there are highly articulate, so it is up to them to ensure a satisfactory solution for themselves.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here